I don't begrudge the guy for getting all the exposure he can after nailing the election stuff, but him calling football games based on somebody else's research just seems really lame.

Click to expand...

He credits FO extensively, and makes sure that people know whose models he's using. Their methodologies are fundamentally similar, and I doubt FO minds the exposure. Nate used to work for Baseball Prospectus, so it's not like this is a radical departure for him.

He credits FO extensively, and makes sure that people know whose models he's using. Their methodologies are fundamentally similar, and I doubt FO minds the exposure. Nate used to work for Baseball Prospectus, so it's not like this is a radical departure for him.

Click to expand...

No, I get that--that's not really what I meant. It just struck me as lame that he was offering his two cents on football. But if there really is an overlap w/what they do and he does, then I suppose it's fine. (I haven't read his book and honestly don't know much about his methodology, other than the fact he completely nailed all of the election stuff.)

Nate invented PECOTA, which at the time he left Baseball Prospectus was incredibly accurate so it's not like he doesn't have familiarity with sports. I think he probably recognizes that FO is very good at assessing the performance of teams through advanced statistics, and that's how he comes to his conclusion. Where FO gets criticized is that historically as a predictive tool they haven't fared particularly well against the market.

Also, I wish eh would have elaborated on this:

"Things, for example, like the Patriots are very aggressive on going for it on fourth down. ... And Bill Belichick will do those things, and he reads the papers and so forth -- not the newspapers, but reads like the academic papers that say you want to actually keep your offense on the field on fourth down a lot.

"And those little marginal things when you have to win now three more games against really good teams, can begin to add up."

Click to expand...

since I had very little success trying to explain it to certain people here. Game theory optimal playcalling and decision making (which nobody in the NFL currently utilizes, BB included) is probably worth 2 games a season. Since BB is the closest to utilizing it it's an edge. That's why when you still see people saying that his aggressive 4th down decisions are "stupid" it's maddening because all they're doing is gauging it relative to conventional ultra-conservative wisdom. BB himself is too conservative much of the time.

Nate Silver began his career in sports statistics. But that's just where he started. He's a generalist, a scientist in his field. Comparing his analysis to that of any popular media prognosticator is like comparing the medical opinions of a physician vs. those of a tarot card reader. You can do it, you can defend it, you can wrap tradition around it, you can convince yourself you are right, you can build society around it, but you are still going to be wrong most of the time.

Nate invented PECOTA, which at the time he left Baseball Prospectus was incredibly accurate so it's not like he doesn't have familiarity with sports. I think he probably recognizes that FO is very good at assessing the performance of teams through advanced statistics, and that's how he comes to his conclusion. Where FO gets criticized is that historically as a predictive tool they haven't fared particularly well against the market.

Also, I wish eh would have elaborated on this:

since I had very little success trying to explain it to certain people here. Game theory optimal playcalling and decision making (which nobody in the NFL currently utilizes, BB included) is probably worth 2 games a season. Since BB is the closest to utilizing it it's an edge. That's why when you still see people saying that his aggressive 4th down decisions are "stupid" it's maddening because all they're doing is gauging it relative to conventional ultra-conservative wisdom. BB himself is too conservative much of the time.

Click to expand...

Small sample size yields low confidence. It's far more difficult to predict the outcome of a football game than a presidential election. The problem with FO isn't its methodology, but rather the very nature of the thing that it's trying to predict.

That's why FO largely eschews using wins as a data point, instead looking to make predictions and evaluations based on sample sets with far more data points (typically play-by-play, adjusted for strength of opponent and situation).

Small sample size yields low confidence. It's far more difficult to predict the outcome of a football game than a presidential election. The problem with FO isn't its methodology, but rather the very nature of the thing that it's trying to predict.

That's why FO largely eschews using wins as a data point, instead looking to make predictions and evaluations based on sample sets with far more data points (typically play-by-play, adjusted for strength of opponent and situation).

Click to expand...

good post. I would only add that predictive models aren't measured against a mythical degree of perfect accuracy, they're measured against other predictive models. In that vein FO still comes up a little short imo and it certainly doesn't beat the betting market. I just don't think predictions are FO's forte.